One version of each focal length?

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, evikne said:

What do we need a forum for when we can just ask ChatGPT? 😉

Gone are the days that one could mumble to oneself. Now one must talk to a bot…

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Olaf_ZG]

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

Indeed. As artificially intelligent as possible.

Happy I can still call myself stupid sometimes… 😎

[IkarusJohn]

Can we get two bots chatting together and leave them to it?

[UliWer]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

Can we get two bots chatting together and leave them to it?

Bot_1: "Is it true that I need one version of each focal length? I know someone who has no 16mm (from Leica) and he is content though."

Bot_2: "You misunderstood the question completely! Of course the original posting does not imply that you need each focal length. It questions whether you need more than one lens of a certain focal length."

Bot_1: "It does not say so. The wording is clear: One version of each focal length. Why should he say "each focal length" when he only means certain focal lengthes?"

Bot_2: "Don't argue with words but with the reason behind them. Why should anybody want each focal length?"

Bot_1: "I already told you, that I know someone who has - almost - each focal length. With the exception of 16mm he has 18, 19, 21, 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, 60, 65, 73, 75, 85, 90, 105, 125, 135mm - I leave out the long lengthes of 180, 200, 280mm which he also owns. He was recently considering to get a 20mm." 

Bot_1:  "That is completely unreasonable. If someone like this really exists you have to rule him out as completely nuts. We don't talk about pathological behavior here."

Bot_1: "But why should it be more unreasonable to own each focal length than owning more than one version of a certain focal length?"

Bot_2: "Didn't you realize that we are talking about owners of Leica lenses? Reason has no place there."

Bot_1: "That's what I am talking about all the time! Those Leica people do want each focal length at the same time as they want more than one item of a certain focal length. Though the original question only asks about each focal length."

Bot_2 "This person drives my nuts! I better put him on my ignore list."

 

[goldenbear]

On 6/8/2023 at 1:52 AM, evikne said:

I think a modern and a classic lens for each focal length makes sense. More than that is usually redundant. I doubt if people can see much difference in the images of their five (or more) versions of the same focal length. And you probably don't need all the focal lengths either.

But of course, if you can afford it, there are many temptations. 😉

I’d add a travel / lighter weight category to this. I have both the 50 Lux BC and Elmar-M, both considered modern lenses, and generally always choose the Elmar when traveling or hiking. 

[pippy]

On 6/8/2023 at 2:10 AM, IkarusJohn said:

...If you move your feet, you can achieve a lot with a 28mm lens...

This oft-repeated concept is, to a large extent, nonsense.

Sure; it can work sometimes. If, for instance, you want to photograph a wall-mounted street name-sign then moving closer with a 28 can probably give you pretty much the same image as shooting from a greater distance with a 50mm.

However; moving closer with a 28mm lens, as I'm sure you realise, is not often the same as shooting from a greater distance with, say, a 50mm lens. If you move your feet to go closer to your subject you change the relationship between the relative sizes of foreground subject matter and background not to mention the relative positions of everything else between the two. Not only that but, conversely, if you shoot from an ideal position with a 28mm lens and try to take the same photograph by moving further back with a 50 there can often be unwanted 'stuff' between you and the subject which will interfere with / appear in the image.

Philip.

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pippy said:

This oft-repeated concept is, to a large extent, nonsense.

Sure; it can work sometimes. If, for instance, you want to photograph a wall-mounted street name-sign then moving closer with a 28 can probably give you pretty much the same image as shooting from a greater distance with a 50mm.

However; moving closer with a 28mm lens, as I'm sure you realise, is not often the same as shooting from a greater distance with, say, a 50mm lens. If you move your feet to go closer to your subject you change the relationship between the relative sizes of foreground subject matter and background not to mention the relative positions of everything else between the two. Not only that but, conversely, if you shoot from an ideal position with a 28mm lens and try to take the same photograph by moving further back with a 50 there can often be unwanted 'stuff' between you and the subject which will interfere with / appear in the image.

Philip.

Don’t say this on the Q forum, you won’t “survive”. It’s 28 or nothing overthere…

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

This oft-repeated concept is, to a large extent, nonsense.

Sure; it can work sometimes. If, for instance, you want to photograph a wall-mounted street name-sign then moving closer with a 28 can probably give you pretty much the same image as shooting from a greater distance with a 50mm.

However; moving closer with a 28mm lens, as I'm sure you realise, is not often the same as shooting from a greater distance with, say, a 50mm lens. If you move your feet to go closer to your subject you change the relationship between the relative sizes of foreground subject matter and background not to mention the relative positions of everything else between the two. Not only that but, conversely, if you shoot from an ideal position with a 28mm lens and try to take the same photograph by moving further back with a 50 there can often be unwanted 'stuff' between you and the subject which will interfere with / appear in the image.

Philip.

Nonsense might be a bit strong, Philip!

I agree entirely with your point, though.  As soon as you move your feet, you're changing perspective.  It all depends on your subject, and how you wish to portray it.  A subject photographed with a tele centric lens (say, 50mm or longer) will appear completely different from the same subject and same framing with a 28mm lens or wider.  Ultimately, that's one of many reasons why we have different focal length lenses.

Cropping doesn't cut it.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Nonsense might be a bit strong, Philip!

... A subject photographed with a tele centric lens (say, 50mm or longer) will appear completely different from the same subject and same framing with a 28mm lens or wider...

Oh, I'm not sure 'nonesense' is putting it strongly enough, John!............well, OK; perhaps a bit but I will post a pair of images taken just the other day by way of explanation for those who might not be convinced by what I wrote. Please bear in mind that these snaps were NOT taken to illustrate this point (hence different compositions) but do sort-of serve the purpose.

The lenses in question weren't as far apart as a 28 and a 90 : just a 35 and 50. Focal lengths which, incidentally, some photographers consider to be too close to one another and that one of them will be superfluous for their way of shooting. The 50 was on a Monochrom and the 35 on the 'colour body' so the latter has been rendered in B'n'W to level things off.

First was taken on the 50mm purely as a 'safety-net' pic just in case the seated figure got up to leave. Second, using the 35mm, was taken a handful of seconds later after I had given the scene a little bit more consideration and moved to a more favourable position (I sat on the far bench of the table seen in the first frame). Have a good look at the relative sizes of Figure, Tables, Shoreline and Ruin;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Philip.

Edited December 3, 2023 by pippy

[IkarusJohn]

Perfect example, Philip.  Thanks for posting it.  Illustrates well the fore-shortening of the 90mm image and the more pleasing context of the 35mm image!  The latter adds a little drama, and is way more interesting.

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Perfect example, Philip.  Thanks for posting it.  Illustrates well the fore-shortening of the 90mm image and the more pleasing context of the 35mm image!  The latter adds a little drama, and is way more interesting.

Thanks, John, but the '90mm' image was shot on a 50mm which is an even stronger indication as to why (IMO) the 'zooming with the feet' is a piece of nonsense.

😸

Philip.

[IkarusJohn]

19 minutes ago, pippy said:

Thanks, John, but the '90mm' image was shot on a 50mm which is an even stronger indication as to why (IMO) the 'zooming with the feet' is a piece of nonsense.

😸

Philip.

Well, I guess it depends (doesn’t it always?).

I tend to select the lens and visualise an image based on what I’m likely to encounter.  I agree that it is nonsense to think that you will capture the same image using different lenses by moving your feet.  That wasn’t my point (though I probably expressed it badly).  I move my feet to frame the subject in a way which suits the lens I’m using and the image I want.  This is perfectly illustrated by your images above.

But, if a photographer is just relying on cropping to obtain an image, then they’re not engaging in what I’ve just described.  If they’re using a Q camera with a 28mm lens or an M11, and relying on cropping to get the image they want, then they’re not engaged in the photography I’m talking about (or interested in).  Speaking purely for myself, if I had such a camera, I would move my feet to get the framing and subject presentation I wanted, rather than just crop.

In your 35mm image you moved your feet from where you took your 50mm image (sorry about my confusion), which is exactly my point.

Incidentally, I do have an X2D and it has cropping modes.  As I have only one lens (at 38V, with equivalent field of view of 30 for an M camera), I could crop, but I don’t, other than to correct horizontals or remove something distracting I hadn’t noticed.  I move my feet to get the image I want, fully in the knowledge of how that will appear through the lens.

I hope that makes sense, and isn’t “nonsense” to you! 😋

[NigelG]

So good to come across this thread as I’m about to make a very big shift from “every focal length” (often in multiple flavours) to just a couple of lenses (assuming Ivor at Red Dot will take them off my hands…)

I have everything from a beautiful M mount 16 Hologon to at least 3 90s via 21 SEM, 24 SE, many many 28s including the Summicron ASPH v2, various 35s and lots of 50s (maybe 7?) from Cron to Noctilux via lots of new diversions inc at one time 3 different Lux ASPH versions.

I’ve realised that I swither so much over which lenses to take (+ then Monochrom vs colour vs screenless cameras or not) that it’s impacting my “hobby”. 

It never bothered me when I shot a Canon IDs series with only an L24-105 and L70-200 as my 1 body/2 lenses covered most eventualities…but then at the same time I never really thought about “rendering” or “bokeh” or whether images were “filmic”… I just wanted to get the shot.

I’m now fixing on a 28 Lux (if AGF Camera deliver 🤞🏻)  and 50 Lux ASPH as a 2 lens M set with either 1 body or them separately mounted and my TL2 with the 11-23 + EVF as my architectural travel camera. I’ll keep a TT 28 f5.6 on my M9M as a street camera.

I don’t know how it’s going to be not having other focal lengths to play with but I’m hoping it will help me ditch the GAS and constant “these are my main lenses” and “these are my light travel lenses in the same focal lengths but I don’t really like them ” and “these are my quirky lenses but I can’t use them all the time ” and “these are my ‘bestest bestest’ lenses but they are a bit heavy so I often don’t bring them with me…)

 

[pippy]

48 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

...I hope that makes sense, and isn’t “nonsense” to you! 😋...

Absolutely, John, complete sense. Thanks for taking the time to work out what I was trying to show and also my apologies for misundertanding what, specifically, you meant by the 'foot-zooming' thing!

Philip.

Edited December 4, 2023 by pippy

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, NigelG said:

So good to come across this thread as I’m about to make a very big shift from “every focal length” (often in multiple flavours) to just a couple of lenses (assuming Ivor at Red Dot will take them off my hands…)

I have everything from a beautiful M mount 16 Hologon to at least 3 90s via 21 SEM, 24 SE, many many 28s including the Summicron ASPH v2, various 35s and lots of 50s (maybe 7?) from Cron to Noctilux via lots of new diversions inc at one time 3 different Lux ASPH versions.

I’ve realised that I swither so much over which lenses to take (+ then Monochrom vs colour vs screenless cameras or not) that it’s impacting my “hobby”. 

It never bothered me when I shot a Canon IDs series with only an L24-105 and L70-200 as my 1 body/2 lenses covered most eventualities…but then at the same time I never really thought about “rendering” or “bokeh” or whether images were “filmic”… I just wanted to get the shot.

I’m now fixing on a 28 Lux (if AGF Camera deliver 🤞🏻)  and 50 Lux ASPH as a 2 lens M set with either 1 body or them separately mounted and my TL2 with the 11-23 + EVF as my architectural travel camera. I’ll keep a TT 28 f5.6 on my M9M as a street camera.

I don’t know how it’s going to be not having other focal lengths to play with but I’m hoping it will help me ditch the GAS and constant “these are my main lenses” and “these are my light travel lenses in the same focal lengths but I don’t really like them ” and “these are my quirky lenses but I can’t use them all the time ” and “these are my ‘bestest bestest’ lenses but they are a bit heavy so I often don’t bring them with me…)

 

Crikey!  You’re selling you M60s?

[tedd]

 

4 hours ago, pippy said:

Oh, I'm not sure 'nonesense' is putting it strongly enough, John!............well, OK; perhaps a bit but I will post a pair of images taken just the other day by way of explanation for those who might not be convinced by what I wrote. Please bear in mind that these snaps were NOT taken to illustrate this point (hence different compositions) but do sort-of serve the purpose.

The lenses in question weren't as far apart as a 28 and a 90 : just a 35 and 50. Focal lengths which, incidentally, some photographers consider to be too close to one another and that one of them will be superfluous for their way of shooting. The 50 was on a Monochrom and the 35 on the 'colour body' so the latter has been rendered in B'n'W to level things off.

First was taken on the 50mm purely as a 'safety-net' pic just in case the seated figure got up to leave. Second, using the 35mm, was taken a handful of seconds later after I had given the scene a little bit more consideration and moved to a more favourable position (I sat on the far bench of the table seen in the first frame). Have a good look at the relative sizes of Figure, Tables, Shoreline and Ruin;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Philip.

I prefer the 50mm shot here! This goes against what a lot of folk say re: focal length, but in this case it feels more like I am part of the image and looks more natural (to me). The exaggerated perspective of the 35mm is too much for my eyes and somehow feels more cramped in the composition than the 50 does (I keep a 35 along with my 50 only for indoor family shots or when I really need that extra room, but that is right on the edge how wide I can stomach for most use cases I come across).  

Nothing feels like a 50 except a 50 and cropping has never worked for me. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by tedd

[Jeff S]

The thread started by questioning the sense in owning multiple lenses in the same focal length, not cropping or perspective changes by moving one’s feet.  Returning to that topic, I’ve rarely owned more than one version of a limited number of focal lengths for the M. Currently, I have only 4 M lenses: 28, 50 and two 35’s, only because I haven’t gotten around to selling one. Enough for my needs. 
 

I can think of various reasons for folks owning multiple lenses in the same focal length: GAS, of course; rendering “character” differences; speed (for light gathering and/or the bokeh craze); size/weight considerations for travel; keeping the same focal length mounted to multiple bodies (for bad weather or for color vs Monochrom, etc); collections;  and so forth.

No right or wrong, naturally.  But less is more for me.  Nobody knows, or cares, what lens I’ve used for a particular pic or print, especially if it’s worthy.  There are already myriad variables besides lens choice at every stage of the shooting, editing and display workflow. No need to complicate my life by having to decide among a pile of lenses. I think it would hurt, not help, my photography.
 

Jeff

 

[RexGig0]

Since my previous post, I have added another 35mm, the Re-Edition Steel Rim Summilux-M, which has a MUCH different visual signature than my much-used Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM. I had considered 35mm to be the focal length I used to shoot modern, “perfect” images, but gradually succumbed to the lure of the non-Aspherical, vintage look, with a compact lens that enables slinging the camera under a vest or coat. (The Zeiss Distagon is a rather large lens.)

Finally, the oft-harsh Texas sunlight conditons prompted me to add yet another 50mm lens, the Voigtlander APO Lanthar VM, which, if nothing else, delivers noticeably superior flare resistance, for situations that require best performance, in that regard. It is no longer necessary to bring a DSLR, and a 24-70mm “pro” zoom lens, to be reasonably certain that flare will not ruin an important normal-focal-length image.

Not saying that Gear Acquisition Syndrome is in permanent remission, but I cannot identify any unfilled niches, or realistic “grail quests,” among Leica M-mount lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The thread started by questioning the sense in owning multiple lenses in the same focal length, not cropping or perspective changes by moving one’s feet.

Ah, but conversation is so much more fun when you let it drift!

[IkarusJohn]

On 6/8/2023 at 11:36 AM, IkarusJohn said:

I can’t remember who said if the framing is wrong, move your feet, but thinking further about focal lengths I’ve come to question the benefit of having more than one lens in the same focal length.  It goes against the grain.

My view has always been, think about the focal lengths you need, buy well, then get on with taking photos.  Now, I find that I have multiple lenses in the same lengths, and I question how I got there.  That’s rhetorical.  

Another round of rationalisation, and I’m looking at dumping my SL, 24-90 zoom and 180/2.8 Elmarit-R and some of my M lenses (I feel a tightness in my chest just typing this).  I have one 21mm lens; two 28s; two 35s; four (four!) 50s; and one 75mm.  Now, each is different - in most cases, old and new.  

In all honesty, despite the enjoyment of each, is there any justification holding more than one lens in each focal length?

So, to answer my own question, 4 months on.

With my Nikon gear, I just bought the best lens I could afford in the focal lengths I wanted.  The camera came with a 55mm “kit” lens in those days, which didn’t come out of the box.  Zooms were definitely  de classé, being used by Canon shooters with the ubiquitous 70-210mm zoom lens.  I muddled about over the years, and settled on a 14-24 AF-S zoom, a 35-85 zoom (?) and a 180/2.8 IFED telephoto, each a “flagship” lens.  I didn’t really think about bokeh, character or lens speed that much.  They were just the focal lengths I needed, and the best looking lenses available.

Subsequently with Hasselblad gear, the 500cx had wonderful Zeiss lenses, and really you just selected the focal lengths you required.  It’s pretty much the same with the XCD lenses, though now you have the additional choices of the P (pancake) and V lenses.  But, there isn’t that much variability and the lenses are very fine (okay, there’s differences between focal lengths, with the 80/1.9 being the “Noctilux” of the range) - but you get my point.  If you want the lenses which go with the camera, you just chose the focal length you want.

But with Leica … it’s a whole new world.

Having just received my M10-D back from Wetzlar safe and sound, I don’t see myself selling any of my M lenses, or adding to them.  There’s enough of a project exploring the strengths and weaknesses of what I have.  As for the Hasselblad, I’ll stick with the 38V.  I might add a wide (re-purchasing the 21/4 is a possibility), but the priority will be adding a telephoto (either the 90V or the 80/1.9) - and that will be that.  After 6 weeks in HK, France and Italy, the X2D is definitely a keeper.

Edited December 4, 2023 by IkarusJohn